About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Downtown 1, Paris 1, Moody 1, Secondly 1, Lastly 1, Petro 1, Us 1, America 1, Mr. Sanchez 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    September 22, 2010
    10:00 - 10:30pm PDT  

10:00pm
building and then came to the hearing and said, i have proof that they were worried that it was a without a permit. this was a cascading said of misrepresentations that really started their relationship. what you are seeing is a hangover from 2004. >> thank you. >> i don't have much to say. this is an extremely modest addition and this is set back substantially from the front property line and from the rear building walls. this was approved unanimously by the planning commission. the department fully supported it and this is fully code compliant. the residential design team
10:01pm
supported the project. we would like to put plans on the overhead that will answer some of the questions. >> this is the subject property, this is a very modest addition that they are doing at the top level. >> can you tell us what page? >> this is the planned said middle. -- submission. looking at the property, this is two weeks out and this is set back substantially from the front building wall and this extends further to the rear them the proposed addition will although there might be some shadow cast upon the rear from the house of the appellant. i see no reason why this board should deny the permit.
10:02pm
>> the mind but in that picture back up again? -- do you mind putting that picture back up again? >> this is the top floor setback? >> that is correct. >> where is the rear of the project? >> that is right here. i believe that is the building wall. >> i was going to ask why you would not have them pulled this all the way back to match the appellant set back but it looks like it be in the garden? >> this would have an adverse impact on the rear yard. >> that is not a requirement. the project sponsor agreed to do this. >> that is often a good idea. >> that is not required. they don't see any need to have
10:03pm
a shadow steady. >> is there a need for this study? >> i was interested to see that this would not be needed because of the size and location of the edition and the location of the appellants property. i don't see how there would be much of an impact on the property. going further and doing a steady does not seem necessary. >> what about these from the park? >> i don't see how this is negatively impacting any views of the public open space. this is a very modest addition. >> thank you. i have won public comment card here.
10:04pm
>> this project is in deeper tora neighborhood. i have attached the neighborhood to show the eastern neighborhood planning area and all of the blue area is in deep in that part of the general plan. this is attached with the showcase area plan. the subject property is in deep in that area and subject to its
10:05pm
requirements. i understand this was not required but it was offered and agreed to buy a key architect. >> the letter has said that they would provide the steady and this is also included in the discretionary review. >> this is wonderful to see. they don't show everything that the shattered study shows because they show this at least two times of the year and usually the equinox or the solstice. this would show things that the story could not show unless there were left out for an entire year. the last item that i want to address is the issue of the size and scale of the edition. the simple reality is that it was built up to the lot line. the two adjacent houses were
10:06pm
not. there is no averaging of this possible that is the averaging of the setbacks and this approach is the second story addition. >> i think that the other point, this is about civility and -- they wanted me to read a letter to clarify one of the points. there are claims that this would be derailed by the proposed addition. the truth is that the original system would be inoperable in the shadow of the edition. this is a matter of record. we chose to move ahead despite the shadow. this is an abbreviated system. this will work and deliver
10:07pm
something in the summer. the loss of available solar energy will be considerable and in retrospect we should have demanded compensation. instead of some kind of relationship going sour, this is on the public record of just to the data that this was not issued. i did not want a contentious relationship at all. >> we have two minutes for the permit holder. you cannot speak under public comment but if there mr. moody went to give some time, you could speak. >> you are probably wondering why i'm spending so much of my
10:08pm
life savings building on a lot like this. i love petro hill, we generally have fantastic neighbors. this is a wonderfully supportive community and i plan to spend as much of the rest of my life on this property. i don't want to build down the property. there is a circular stair that goes down from my kitchen down to the room below. i have parents did come visit me and i don't want them to stay in downtown -- downstairs bedroom. i would like them to stay as long as they need to. i appreciate your time. thank you. parts anything further from the
10:09pm
department? >> commissioners, the matter is submitted? >> would you clear up what implications if any paris as to what is and what is not showplace square. >> there is no provisions which would prevent the project. this must be viewed as a whole, not in pieces. it anyone could find it policy that supports his or her position in the general plan so we need to look at this in total and in total this project complies with the general plan. >> thank you. >> there are two issues.
10:10pm
one is the issue of the shadow steady and therefore what impact this has on the home. as far as i can see, the permit holders property is due north. if there is any impact from that, this is probably a relatively small sliver. i don't even think that would be the case. this would be the reverse situation where the appellant really has some kind of shadow on the project therefore the question of a shadow steady is really a moot because there is no shadow. secondly, in terms of
10:11pm
sustainability, the home faces south. how she chooses to balance her heating and cooling is up to her. this is really not impacted by the addition. lastly, i find that the position is very modest, as mr. sanchez has said. i think that this is sensitive and sent back on both the front and rear of this small-scale and i am prepared to uphold this permit. >> my comments would have been exactly the same. it seems as though the same issues, i agree with this. the shadow has been dealt with, the orientation is that there was never a need for a steady and there is very little need for an impact given the
10:12pm
orientation of the houses and therefore on the sustainability issue, this is a modest addition. this complies with the planning code and with the general plan and is consistent with the residential design guidelines and i intent to uphold the permit. >> i think that this is pretty straightforward. i would echo the other comments of my fellow commissioners. there is not here -- enough here to work with for the appeal and i would uphold the permit. >> i would tend to agree.
10:13pm
i've suggested and i would have liked to have seen maybe some averaging of the setbacks. that was not done public has the appellants property seems to extend further in the rear. i agree with what has been said. >> i have nothing further to add. i hope that you all get along in the future and i understand that this has been tough for all parties but this is a relatively small edition. the shatters study would be moot. -- shadow study would be moved. i move to deny the appeal. >> on the motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit for the reasons stated --
10:14pm
>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> there's no further business. >> we are returned -- adjourned.
10:15pm
10:16pm
10:17pm
10:18pm
10:19pm
10:20pm
10:21pm
10:22pm
10:23pm
10:24pm
10:25pm
10:26pm
>> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling oil. thank you. we can go into a refinery and we can use it again. they do oil changes and sell it anyway, so now they know when a ticket to a. hal>> to you have something you want to get rid of? >> why throw it away when you can reuse it? >> it can be filtered out and used for other products.
10:27pm
>> [speaking spanish] >> it is going to be a good thing for us to take used motor oil from customers. we have a 75-gallon tank that we used and we have someone take it from here to recycle. >> so far, we have 35 people. we have collected 78 gallons, if not more. these are other locations that you can go. it is absolutely free. you just need to have the location open. you are set to go.
10:28pm
the biggest issue in america today? segregation still exists... racism... the repression and oppression of women the educational system stem cell research homeless people cloning government health care taxation announcer: so, is there anything you're doing to help make a change? i'm not really doin' anything. ummmm [sighs] got me on that one...
10:29pm

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)